Only in a spiritual and thematic sense, although inXile owns the "Torment" name. Still, you have the original creators of the Planescape setting, a writer and concept artist from Torment, Chris Avellone's blessing and, of course, Fargo headed up Interplay.

Originally Posted by jhwisner
Yeah the setting seems really interesting. It's heavily reminiscent of Jack Vance's "The Dying Earth" - which makes a lot of sense since that's pretty much where the original DnD games lifted their entire magic system (mechanics and spell nomenclature not abstract lore).

Interesting infobit. I hadn't heard that and I was playing D&D as a kid when it was a new thing. It makes sense, though. I recognized Michael Moorcock's alignment system right away, and of course the Tolkien influences are inescapable. The creators of D&D seem to have had the same interests in fiction I did, though as far as I know I never read anything by Vance.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
Only in a spiritual and thematic sense, although inXile owns the "Torment" name. Still, you have the original creators of the Planescape setting, a writer and concept artist from Torment, Chris Avellone's blessing and, of course, Fargo headed up Interplay.

The Planescape setting means nothing if they can draw their ideas from the same sources that the early PnP designers did. Provided they do an equally good job of it, that is. And if they don't, well… there's a pretty good chance they wouldn't have done a good job of capturing the spirit of Planescape, either. Franchise licenses just restrict devs to complying with somebody else's requirements and there's no guarantee that won't hurt rather than help the end product, considering none of those franchises are still under the control of the original creators. And how many of today's gamers really have such an emotional investment in obscure (relatively speaking) game systems that were created 30 or more years ago that having the name on the title screen is a make or break for them, anyway? The connection to Torment is much more important.

Whichever direction we ultimately take it, we’ll be giving combat considerable attention – we are aware that one of the criticisms of PST (including from Avellone) was its combat and we want to improve upon that aspect. The Numenera combat system provides a stronger starting place for a cRPG than AD&D 2nd Edition did and we’ll prototype early so that we have ample time to iterate over the course of the project.

Rules-based combat systems are great and I hope they use a good one, but the specific rules chosen have never been the problem. Somebody here want to tell me that Fallout 2 had more tactical, more challenging and more interesting combat than Jagged Alliance 2? No? Well, that's certainly not the fault of D&D, is it? Doesn't really seem like rocket science to understand why devs whose game was about combat first and foremost were able to make the combat better than devs who viewed the combat as filler their storytelling game. I want both. I want it all. If I don't get it, too bad for me, but I don't want to hear all that crap I used to hear about limitations of the rule system that was being used.

Originally Posted by CraigCWB
Interesting infobit. I hadn't heard that and I was playing D&D as a kid when it was a new thing. It makes sense, though. I recognized Michael Moorcock's alignment system right away, and of course the Tolkien influences are inescapable. The creators of D&D seem to have had the same interests in fiction I did, though as far as I know I never read anything by Vance.

Well the first edition DMG actually had a bibliography in the back listing all their inspirations, if you're curious as to how much your interests align beyond that:

"Entire body of work" for many entries! I like it. They were compulsive readers, like me. I've also read the entire body of work of many of those authors, such as Edgar Rice Burroughs, Michael Moorcock, L. Sprague DeCamp, Tolkien (of course), Robert E. Howard, etc. In fact, I'd say I've read the entire body of work of about 3/4 of the authors on that list. But then there are cases such as Vance where I'm familiar with them but decided not to read anything they'd written. Odd! I assume I have tastes in common with somebody, but not with somebody else.

I just hope they don't get too bogged down in dialogue again in this new Torment. I enjoyed PS:T but the excessive verbosity just made me quit playing. I don't usually mind text but in that one it was too much. I also sometimes feel like I'm the only one that had a problem with it, like I'm the only one here that didn't like Gothic.

Originally Posted by Lucky Day
I just hope they don't get too bogged down in dialogue again in this new Torment. I enjoyed PS:T but the excessive verbosity just made me quit playing. I don't usually mind text but in that one it was too much. I also sometimes feel like I'm the only one that had a problem with it, like I'm the only one here that didn't like Gothic.

I liked the first Gothic but I think that was mostly because there wasn't that much else on the market, and it was different. The rest from those guys I'm kinda "blah" about. On the other hand, I liked Torment a lot

Originally Posted by Lucky Day
I just hope they don't get too bogged down in dialogue again in this new Torment. I enjoyed PS:T but the excessive verbosity just made me quit playing.

It's very story and narrative heavy, that's one of the things that ties it to PS:T. If you didn't like PS:T for those reasons, you're unlikely to like this game. Just the way it is, doesn't have to appeal to everyone!

Originally Posted by Lucky Day
I just hope they don't get too bogged down in dialogue again in this new Torment. I enjoyed PS:T but the excessive verbosity just made me quit playing. I don't usually mind text but in that one it was too much. I also sometimes feel like I'm the only one that had a problem with it, like I'm the only one here that didn't like Gothic.

Nope, you're definitely not the only one. I quit Torment about 2/3 of the way in. I also couldn't get into Gothic at all. I enjoyed Gothic 3 for quite awhile though.

I didn't mind the verbosity, but for me the "with pause" combat was a real turn off and I eventually put it down for that reason. I want to say that turn-based combat is just inherently better, but I guess that's not reasonable.

Originally Posted by screeg
I didn't mind the verbosity, but for me the "with pause" combat was a real turn off and I eventually put it down for that reason. I want to say that turn-based combat is just inherently better, but I guess that's not reasonable.

I kinda liked what they did with JA:BIA with that "plan and go" thing. Real time with pause is better than real time without pause, but that's about all I can say about it. I find myself chronically pausing and stomping all over my own orders because I'm never sure which characters have done what they were told and which haven't at any given point.

I actually prefer RTWP to pure turn-based. I cringe when I hear people say that they think the Infinity Engine games would have been better with TB combat. Are you kidding me? Baldur's Gate would take about a year to play through if all those encounters were turn-based.

If you'd actually played the Gold Box games first (before the infinity engine games) you might understand much better the argument regarding turn based combat.
I think those formative experiences (which ever you played first) in some way provide a framework by which many other AD&D rules based games are judged in our minds.

I thoroughly appeciated my experience with Torment via the dialogue…the writing was so strong and vivid, yet it wasn't even with a mage styled playthrough, thus I probably missed many options.
However, I did struggle with the combat and remember mostly fleeing my way through Baator.

It's definitely a game I need to play again to rekindle those memories and for the writing alone.

If by that you mean later D&D games were much better that's the only way that statement makes sense to me. The gold box games were way tedious and ugly, the way most SSI games were IMO. Much better were the Ultimas and Bard's Tale's of the world.

I liked them too in the way I liked PS:T. I simply got tired of getting so bogged down.

Uh, no. I didn't say anything about D&D games being "better", so that's purely your own thinking and interpretation.

I simply responded to JDR's post (responding to Screeg's) with the suggestion that our formative/early RPG experiences provide some measure by which many later gaming experiences within a similar genre and style are judged upon.
Thus, the logical connection is between the Gold Box and Infinity games.
It's a reasonably straight forward argument actually.

I'm sorry to hear that the Gold Box games didn't do it for you. I also played "the Ultima's and Bard's Tales of the world" and loved them as well, but for different reasons. Let's not muddy the waters too much though as it's not what this topic is actually about.
So, to keep the posts flowing: Torment successor with turn based combat or RTwP? Discuss.

Originally Posted by Pessimeister
I simply responded to JDR's post (responding to Screeg's) with the suggestion that our formative/early RPG experiences provide some measure by which many later gaming experiences within a similar genre and style are judged upon.
Thus, the logical connection is between the Gold Box and Infinity games.
It's a reasonably straight forward arugment actually.

I hear what you're saying, and I agree that early experiences definitely shape what a person prefers later on, but I don't think it has anything to do with that when it comes to my opinion of the IE games. Even though I never played the Gold Box games, I've been playing computer and console RPGs since the early-80s, and the majority of those were turn-based.

I just happen to think RTWP works perfectly for the IE games, and I wouldn't want them any other way. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to play ToEE with RTWP.

PoR: Ruins of Myth Drannor could have definitely benefited from RTWP though.

See, saying that about Ruins of Myth Drannor kind of validates my point a little.

I can't imagine anyone saying that if they'd played the original Pool of Radiance first…but maybe that's partially my early gaming bias to the Goldbox turn-based combat showing.

Interestingly, you can utilise the menus to make the infininty games more traditionally turn based-like (by choosing when the game auto pauses) but I largely agree that playing them in that fashion wasn't where they worked best.